March 10, 2009, 7:30 a.m.
Come Let Us Reason Together
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Yesterday I reported on our local school board's open public forum, March 7, regarding its proposed demolition of Roosevelt Elementary School, and my small group's negative reactions to the idea on that occasion. Nicholas Johnson, "Roosevelt: Valuing Our Schools; Process and Substance in School Facilities Decisionmaking," March 9, 2009, 8:30 a.m., edited with additional links and comments at 4:45 p.m.
I have written enough, on a variety of subjects, over the years that it is no longer uncommon for me to Google a subject in the course of research and discover I've already written about it in a prior document I'd long since forgotten.
This morning I am indebted to Ed Stone for bringing to my attention a document I helped draft nine years ago that I wished I'd recalled, and included in my blog entry, yesterday. Ed Stone, "Revisit 2000 Long-Range Plan," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 10, 2009, p. A9.
One of my efforts as a member of our local school board (1998-2001) was to try to bring some rational analysis to the governance and policy making process of the board itself. (We ended up choosing, studying, and implementing the John Carver model. For more see, Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice.")
As one of a number of consequences of that reconfiguration of Board-Superintendent relations, the Board addressed and ultimately approved the document to which Ed Stone refers -- a document it turns out he (but not I) found on my own Web site! (The Press-Citizen includes excerpts from the document in the hard copy edition, and a link to the entire document in the online edition.)
It's titled, simply, "Long Range Planning Process and Parameters, An ICCSD Board Document, Approved April 11, 2000." [And see, "Appendix: Evolution of the ICCSD Board's February 2002 Proposal for District Boundaries and Educational Opportunities -- A Bibliography," Draft February 15, 2002.]
I have observed over my years in Washington and elsewhere that (a) when civil, intelligent, informed, and independent individuals get together (i.e., persons not representing clients, causes or ideologies), and freely explore, discuss and propose solutions to a public policy challenge, they often (not always, but often) end up coming to consensus, and that (b) when other, similarly constituted groups engage in a similar exercise they will, more often than not, come up with the same (or very similar) consensus as the first group..
So it is when one compares the contents of the "Long Range Planning Process and Parameters" document of 2000 with the objections raised to the Roosevelt demolition plan in 2009 by the small groups reporting to last Saturday's assembled citizens (including the concerns I reported in my blog entry yesterday).
Here is the entirety of the Board's impressively brief "Long Range Planning Process and Parameters" policy and governance document:
Long Range Planning Process and Parameters
An ICCSD Board Document
Approved April 11, 2000
Long range planning. We want to take advantage of this somewhat unique opportunity to begin an ongoing effort to envision many aspects of the ICCSD five to ten years out, not merely come up with “boundaries” and lines on a map. Many of these options or proposals will have implications for buildings, boundaries and programs; others will not.
Research. We want our decisions, and those of the Superintendent, to be research-based. By this we mean not only the best demographic projections and other District data available, but also the alternatives, experience and best practices reflected in the literature and Internet-published material.
Optimum school size. The Board expressly requests from the Superintendent a research-based report regarding the optimum range of elementary and secondary schools’ enrollment from the standpoint both of cost (schools that are too small) and educational and social values (schools that are too large).
Community communication and concerns. We want to make every effort to minimize unnecessary community concerns during the course of our deliberations and those of the Superintendent. We need the freedom to be able to consider the widest possible range of options while reassuring stakeholders that it is not our intent to implement any option without thorough discussion with the community. As always, the Board and Superintendent welcome public input and will develop a communications plan to ensure that end.
Timing. The Board is looking five to ten years into the future. It recognizes the difficulty of doing so with any precision. But it believes it is in the District’s interest to have such a plan, even if it needs to be revisited and revised every year. It will seek to minimize disruption on District families by notifying the community as far in advance as possible of impending changes. Such advance notice makes planning and transitions easier for everyone.
Board decision-making responsibility. The members of the Board have the ultimate, personal and political responsibility for developing the policy and parameters that will be used to guide the long range and boundary planning process. The Board seeks input from the community and administration, and envisions an ongoing, back-and-forth dialogue and regular revision. It expressly requests the Superintendent to inform the Board, as promptly as possible, if and when he believes a Board-established parameter is seriously flawed, impossible of attainment, or simply unwise. But the policies will be worked out by the Board. It will not merely approve a Superintendent’s recommendation. The decision regarding the determination of boundaries will be that of the Board.
Superintendent’s responsibility. The Superintendent is responsible for completing the long range and boundary planning process. While doing so he will provide the Board with such data and research as it may need for its deliberations. He will keep the Board informed of the progress of the long range and boundary planning process. He is expected to guide the process in accordance with all relevant Board policies and parameters. Prior to implementation he is expected to bring the final plan, including the implementation schedule, to the Board for its approval.
First option: Present Schools. An option that must be considered is the use of existing schools. Any and all other options may also be considered.
The first boundaries option as to which the Board requests input from the Superintendent involves full utilization of the District’s present buildings with no new buildings or major additions. The 2004 projections indicate that some of the east side elementary schools will then be at 40-60% of capacity. Many of the west side elementary schools will be nearer 100% of capacity. One (Wickham) will be at 153% of capacity. (Kirkwood will be at 111%, Coralville at 109%.) What would be the cost – in increased busing expenditures and increased student time on buses – of shifting students from west to east? The Board cannot declare in advance how much such cost is “too much.” But it believes its responsibility to property tax payers is such that, if the additional cost is not too much, such a solution is preferable to a multi-million-dollar construction program for new school buildings while existing buildings remain underutilized.
The Board encourages the Superintendent to examine the feasibility of options such as (but not limited to) magnet schools, middle schools, age-grouped schools (i.e., all-kindergarten or K-3 schools), year-round schools, increased job shadowing or independent research (to reduce high school crowding), to use existing facilities in the most cost effective manner.
Second option: New buildings, building remodeling and expansion. Another option is to remodel and expand the District's present schools. (Of course, some remodeling may be a part of long range planning even if not necessary to reduce overcrowding.) The Board requests from the Superintendent in this connection (in addition to the “optimum school size,” above) information regarding the capacity, present and projected enrollment of each school, along with information regarding the amount of available land for expansion. It will then consider a parameter that will produce the maximum benefit (in terms of reduced crowding, and optimum school size) at the least cost (in terms of quantity of construction, adverse impact on families, and lengthened bus rides).
New buildings. Only if the present buildings are inadequate – with or without remodeling and expansion – will the Board consider the option of building a new schools. “Inadequate” includes the conclusion that the use of present buildings will “cost too much” as defined above.
Closing schools. The Board’s preference is that all present schools continue in use – subject to being persuaded that such a preference makes no educational or economic sense.
Low income students’ distribution. The Board’s present intuition is that there are educational and social benefits from elementary school students’ exposure to a diversity of classmates. (As with any other intuitive beliefs of Board members the Board invites the presentation of research findings that either support or challenge its assumption.) At the present time, with a District average of 17% low income students, the proportion in each elementary school varies from 2% to nearly 50%. The Board expressly requests the Superintendent prepare for its consideration a number of alternative models reflecting the implications (economic costs, number of students bussed, time spent on buses) of a more equal distribution of students. Prior to knowing those costs the Board expresses no view as to its preferred range of the percent of low income students at each elementary school.
Occupancy as percent of capacity. The Board wants to maintain an equivalency of educational opportunity between buildings.
Impact on junior and senior high schools. The Board presumes that any boundaries or long range planning decisions will result in a roughly equal allocation of students among the two junior highs and two high schools. If this is not the result of its decisions it will want to revisit them.
Neighborhood schools. To the extent consistent with the Board's preferences and options, above, it would like to maintain the concept of neighborhood schools, keep attendance areas contiguous, keep families together, and limit students to one forced transfer during their elementary years.
__________
[Of these 16 bold-headed paragraphs, the Press-Citizen hard copy edition excerpts paragraph numbers 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, and 16.]
Note how the governance model is working in this instance. These are clearly the Board's "planning process and parameters" -- not a Superintendent-drafted document rubber stamped by the Board. It is the Board that has done the very hard, analytical and creative work of thinking through and then establishing the policy, the goals, what John Carver calls "ends policies." At the same time the Board makes it expressly clear that it respects the Superintendent's professional expertise, and that it is willing to modify its approach when data and research suggest that modifications are required. Having made its very specific policy preferences and parameters expressly clear, it then leaves the implementation of them to the Administration (with a requirement of management information reporting against mileposts of progress and other updates from the Administration to the Board), free of Board members' micro-managing of the Superintendent's day-to-day decisions.
Ed Stone is writing about, and drawing upon this document regarding, allocation of students between our two conventional high schools (City and West; Tate serves the entire District).
But its relationship to the Roosevelt demolition proposal, and the reasons citizens have offered for opposing that proposal, is obvious.
Note that it is also a District-wide long range plan, not an effort to deal with a couple schools at a time.
As for process, see another op ed in this morning's Press-Citizen, Jim Throgmorton, "It's How the Light Gets In," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 10, 2009, p. A9. Here are some excerpts:
A couple of weeks ago, the Iowa City School Board had a public discussion of its Strategic Facilities Improvement Plan as part of a regular board meeting. It didn't go very well. Parents were angry and the board members appeared defensive. Tension filled the room. . . .
Gad, I thought, this is a no-brainer. The president of the board . . . could have greeted the audience with a genuine welcoming smile. Having solicited "feedback" from parents about the district's plan, . . . board members and staff could have taken no more than 10 or 15 minutes to welcome people, lay out the agenda for the night and indicate what they hoped to learn from the public during the hearing.
[They] could have displayed genuine pleasure that so many people had committed their own time and energy to read the plan, to come to the district's office on a cold February night, and to share their assessment of the plan with board members.
Instead of telling this very well-educated audience that they "misunderstand," board members could have acknowledged that one of the primary purposes of the hearing was to let people say how the facts should be weighed.
Once the hearing had ended, [they] could have thanked people for speaking and indicated how their views would be incorporated into the district's final plan.
In his lovely song, "Anthem," Leonard Cohen sings:
"Ring the bells, the bells
That still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack, a crack, in everything.
That's how the light gets in."
There was a crack in the district's plan. Parents saw it and drew attention to it. Feedback like that should be welcomed and embraced. It's how the light gets in.
A functioning governance model, and long range planning that is truly of the Board (not mere rubber-stamping of Administration proposals), are essential. But, as Throgmorton emphasizes, the Board's process in community relations is also important. Indeed, the more inadequate its planning and proposals the more essential it becomes.
Hopefully, Board members are learning from their "demolition disaster," reason will ultimately rule, Roosevelt will be saved, diversity will be better balanced, and a reasoned, sense of boundaries' evolution within a District-wide long range plan will emerge.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
March 9, 2009, 8:30 a.m., 4:45 p.m. (links and other additions/modifications)
Process and Substance in School Facilities Decisionmaking
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
[See also, Nicholas Johnson, "Demolition Disaster," March 10, 2009,
and
"Citizen's Guide to to the options surrounding Roosevelt-Horn-Weber-Kirkwood and the proposed school at 'The Crossings' / Camp Cardinal Road School," from We Love Our Neighborhood Schools.]
The School Board and Superintendent want to demolish Roosevelt Elementary. I disagree.
(Disclosure: Although I did not attend Roosevelt myself, and am neither a Roosevelt parent nor a "Myrtle Orchard Neighborhood" resident, I do live in the adjacent "Melrose Neighborhood," which also looks to Roosevelt as its "neighborhood school.")
From 1998 to 2001 I served as a member of the Iowa City Community School District School Board.
Since that time, while I have of course maintained an interest in K-12 education generally, in this country and beyond, and in our District in particular, I have mostly maintained a respectful silence with regard to the actions of my successors.
Having served on the Board I have some sympathy for those holding the job of which I once said, "well, it may not pay anything, but at least you get a lot of grief." It's not my desire to add to that grief.
But the District's recent decision (something between an "inclination" and what some insiders report as being "a done deal") to tear down Roosevelt Elementary School caused me to attend a public meeting last Saturday, March 7, and to publish this blog entry today. (Some of the Board's overall planning can be found in its Iowa City Community School District, "Strategic Facilities Improvement Plan," 96 pp., undated (a pdf file).)
One of the features of Saturday's gathering was small group meetings at which we were to list what we considered to be the "pros" and "cons" of the Roosevelt demolition. The group I was in noted the following (that is, this is not necessarily my personal list):
Pros: the proposal brought the community together to talk about K-12 education in general and socio-economic issues in particular (the disparity between schools regarding the percentages of "free-and-reduced lunch" (i.e., low income) students).
Cons:
Student safety and walking distance. Many Roosevelt students would need to walk farther and along more dangerous routes (e.g., busy street crossings) to reach a different school. They will be farther from downtown cultural events.
Parental participation. Parental participation in schools enhances their children's education -- some say it is the single most important factor. Parental participation is increased when parents, as well as students, can easily walk to school. This is especially true for many of the low income parents whose children attend Roosevelt, parents who may not even have cars. Increased distance will tend to further remove these parents from connection with their children's activities and education.
Insufficient system-wide planning, public participation, and diversity balance. Diversity balance requires redrawing all school boundaries throughout the District, not just those for two or three schools. (One obvious way to minimize the disruption this would cause, thereby making it more politically feasible, would be to announce the new boundary-drawing principles (and resulting boundaries as of now) -- but withhold their implementation for six or seven years, thereby removing any impact whatsoever on children now in school. For more on this approach, see my earlier writing on boundaries, linked at the bottom of this blog entry. Obviously, had this suggestion been followed when I was on the Board those boundaries, with more boundary flexibility for the Board and Administration, would now be in place.)
To plan a new school (Crossings), knowing that it will be 40% low income (the District average is 28%) seems contrary to the Board's professed goal of improving balance. The Board needs to plan for construction of new schools beyond five years. It needs to provide for more public participation on the front end of this planning.
Uneconomic. With new schools costing millions, to renovate Roosevelt for $900,000 is a cheap price to pay for a "new" school. The "substitute Roosevelt" at the "Crossings" location may be subject to the same kind of cost overruns suffered by the Van Allen school -- making renovation of Roosevelt an even better bargain. Especially given present economic conditions it seems wasteful in the extreme to choose this time to demolish a neighborhood school only to have to spend millions on another school to replace it. Moreover, the additional cost of the demolition itself is not inconsequential and will either be an added cost to the District, if it intends to use the property for some other purpose, or a reduction in the selling price of the property if it is sold to developers who must bear that cost.
Flexibility in renovation costs. The study of Roosevelt renovation costs identifies levels of priority in tasks. Shive Hattery, "Roosevelt Elementary School Assessment," February 13, 2008 (a pdf file). If only the highest priority renovations are made the costs could be even less than the $900,000 referred to above. Lower priority renovations could be done later, in better economic times, while still permitting the building to be used. On the other hand, if every possible change and improvement is made, and additions to the building are constructed, obviously the costs could range upward of $5 or 6 million. Thus, while there is tremendous flexibility in the potential costs of whatever might be done with Roosevelt, they will be by any measure far less than the cost of a new school.
Failure to consider wide range of options; e.g., possibility of Roosevelt-Horn linkage such as K-3 in one school and 4-6 in the other (as both schools are relatively close). The small group making this list felt that the Board had not done an adequate or creative job of considering all the options that would include the preservation of Roosevelt. At the present time low income students are bussed past Horn on their way to Roosevelt! The result is that Roosevelt has one of the highest percentages of low income students (54%) and Horn has one of the lowest (12%).(See, Iowa City Community School District, "Frequently Asked Questions #1; Proposed Strategic Facility Improvement Plan and Roosevelt/Weber/Horn/Kirkwood Recommendation," March 4, 2009, "8. What will be the socioeconomic and racial balance among the schools?") If the Board honestly wants to improve District diversity an obvious answer would be to bus those students to Horn, thereby improving the ratios at both schools.
Removal of family resource center. Roosevelt provides a Family Resource Center for a student population in need of one. It would be lost (or at least there is no clear plan for providing one) for these students following Roosevelt's demolition.
Transition problems. There would be a two-year delay getting benefits to current Roosevelt students.
Finally -- and I deliberately list it "finally" here, because while it involves values that indirectly impact on people of all ages currently a part of the "Roosevelt family," this concern of the Myrtle-Orchard Neighborhood residents in our small group is not "educational" in the narrow sense --
The adverse impact on the "Melrose-Orchard" and "Melrose" neighborhoods. There is reason to believe that if Roosevelt is abandoned by the ICCSD its nine-acre plot would be acquired by developers who would fill it with condos, apartment buildings, or stand-alone homes. This would be a double whammy for two Iowa City neighborhoods that are already fragile. (Melrose Neighborhood is subject to constant invasion by the University from the north.)
A "neighborhood" is in many ways defined by the existence of its "neighborhood school" (rather than the other way around). For a neighborhood to lose its neighborhood school is an enormous whammy to its identity. This is only made worse when developers are permitted to take over an open, green, distinctive location and structure and turn it into more of the same-old, same-old that has already caused a loss of the neighborhood's "character." (There is, for example, a nature trail through a wooded ravine on the Roosevelt property, a kind of park, used by neighborhood residents as well as Roosevelt children.)
__________
The above are points made by members of the small group I attended -- points I agree with for the most part, but were for the most part not my contributions.
There were many more points made by reporters for other groups that will, hopefully, soon be transcribed and available on the District's Web site.
To them I would add a couple more.
School size. It is somewhat bizarre that one of the arguments put forward by the Board for demolishing Roosevelt is its "small class size," given that smaller class (and school) size is universally heralded as a desirable goal even for high schools (a range of 600-800 students), let alone elementary schools (300 students). A part of the plan is to expand Horn Elementary -- necessitated in part because of the proposed demolition of Roosevelt. But that is simply the worst of all possible worlds -- losing the desirable school and class size of Roosevelt, while making worse the school size of Horn. (On the other hand, especially given the two empty classrooms at Horn, this is just another reason for dropping off some of the low income students at Horn rather than bussing them by Horn on their way to Roosevelt, see "Failure to consider wide range of options," above.)
Other schools, other neighborhoods. Roosevelt, built in the early 1930s, is certainly not Iowa City's oldest school. If it is to be demolished should we assume those other older schools, which also need remodeling, will be torn down as well? In that case, all the concerns about Roosevelt -- and the impact on its neighborhood/s -- will only be multiplied many times over. And, if they are not to be torn down, what is the rationale for choosing only Roosevelt? Is it possible that schools in more affluent neighborhoods, such as Lincoln, populated by influential parents, have been better maintained over the years than a school like Roosevelt, with its less affluent and influential parents?
Broken SILO promises. Promises were made by the School Board at the time of the District citizens' vote to increase their taxes to provide the District SILO funds for new schools. In addition to new school construction, the vote passed in large measure (one can safely assume) because of promises that the money would be used to refurbish and remodel the older neighborhood schools.
On February 2, 2007, an op ed column "by Iowa City School Board" appeared in the Press-Citizen explaining "How to Spend SILO Funds." It expressly stated:
The district estimates more than $147 million in priority infrastructure projects over the next 10 years. SILO funds would enable us to make improvements to our buildings that serve our students. There are inequities between buildings constructed in 2005 and those built in preceding decades (some dating to 1917). Those inequities include cost efficiency, handicapped accessibility, gyms and science labs, climate controls, air conditioning, air quality, lighting and overall learning environment. Repair, maintenance and accessibility needs have been deferred for many years because we have lacked the necessary funds. If the SILO sales tax is approved, the district will over time be able to improve the learning environments of our students. (emphasis supplied)
Iowa City School Board, "How to Spend SILO Funds," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 2, 2007, on Web site, "How SILO Funding was Promoted in 2007," We Love Our Neighborhood Schools, March 4, 2009.
There was no mention of the demolition of Roosevelt -- or any other school for that matter -- indeed, quite the contrary. It is troubling that the Board would now fail to honor the representations, relied upon by voters, made by the Board in its effort to obtain the passage of the SILO referendum a mere two years ago.
Development. I hate to even mention this, and I'm certainly not asserting any wrongdoing, but it can't go without comment.
This plan hits a double for local developers.
The Cardinal Road/Crossing development (which, in my opinion, should have been retained by the City/County as greenbelt land in the first place) will receive an enormous economic boost by the sales force being able to tell potential home buyers that their children will be able to attend, within walking distance, one of Iowa City's newest, and most modern schools. That's worth a lot in an escalation in home prices, and presumably is one explanation for the developer's "generous" offer to make the land for the school available "free."
Moreover, the demolition of Roosevelt opens up for the same, or other, developers the opportunity to buy, develop and sell off one of the most prime pieces of land on the West side of town.
I'm not suggesting Roosevelt's demolition, and the new Camp Cardinal ("Crossings") school, are being proposed to enrich a developer -- let alone anything worse. But when public entities (in this case, a school board) are involved in creating millions of dollars of private profit (for, in this case, developers), while destroying a neighborhood school, dealing a heavy blow to two neighborhoods, and throwing the burden on the backs of the children and parents least able to represent themselves, it does deserve a very, very close look.
Economic downturn impact on Camp Cardinal development. Finally, it should be noted that the Camp Cardinal housing development was planned before the recent economic downturn. Home sales are never a slam dunk in the best of times. And these are not the best of times. Some consideration needs to be given to the possibility/probability that the "Crossings" school might end up finding itself to be a "neighborhood school" without a neighborhood.
_______________
Earlier, Related Writing
Over 80 regular Press-Citizen columns (during term as school board member) dealing with K-12 issues; e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "We Can Direct Coming Changes," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 26, 2000, p. 9A
Nicholas Johnson, "Boundaries: An Opening Think Piece," November 14, 1999 Ver. 3.0
Nicholas Johnson, "Quick Fixes Are Too Disruptive," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 23, 1999, p. 15A (boundary setting)
Nicholas Johnson, "Reality: We Just Can't Have it All," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 27, 2001, p. 7A (how to create equity/equality in class sizes across the District)
Nicholas Johnson, "Educational Opportunities and Class Size Equity: A Proposal for the Iowa City Community School District Board," March 25, 2001
Nicholas Johnson, "Smaller Schools Are Better," Iowa City Press-Citizen," August 28, 2001, p. 9A, in "K-12 Alternatives to Calling Police," July 2, 2007
Nicholas Johnson, "The SILO Sales Tax for K-12 Schools" in "UI Held Hostage Day 379 - Feb. 4," February 4, 2007
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
